NickelP:Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?

NickelP:Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

dr_blasto:NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?

Not all by far. Boston, the theatre ones, etc are ended with armed folks. Not to mention I find it hard to believe the shooters all said 'oh hell I'm done killing. Time to off myself'. The fact they were encased by armed folks who'd kill or arrest them had a bit to do with it I'm sure.

I just know that I can sleep better at night knowing that every time one of these events happens, people can become more entrenched and polarized in their views on the subject, thus ensuring nothing will change. So at least those deaths aren't in vain.

dr_blasto:NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?

NewportBarGuy:NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.

Just before the Virginia Tech shooting, in which the murderer was so mentally ill that he should not own a gun, 22 states were reporting disqualified persons to the NCIC. The National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act was enacted to encourage states to meet their responsibilities about reporting those disqualified due to commitment or guardianships.

That has obviously failed to be of any significant help. Republican Senator Graham introduced the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 with bipartisan supporting co-sponsors. It has of course gone nowhere because our elected legislators are do nothing imbeciles.

This is an exceptionally good Bill, it clarifies exactly who must be reported as disqualified as well as including protections for people who may have previously been disqualified but because their medical problems have improved that they no longer present any danger from unjust disqualification.

We heard a lot of BS coming out of Washington, but this bill should have been pushed through despite the political posturing. It is a short Bill, read it and see if you don't agree with everything in it. Republicans, Democrats, Independents... who could possibly object to this?

BizarreMan:NickelP: Id still like to hear one made worse by an armed civilian. Several times they have helped are noted.

Can armed civilians do any worse than the NYPD and LAPD?

No, many of them live in states that limit how many bullets you can have in your gun. Those limits don't apply to police so police can shoot unarmed accident victims, and bystanders with more bullets before having to reload.

NewportBarGuy:NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

What is the cutoff though? I will plead ignorance to this one being so recent but aren't his issues a decade old? If the plan is to stop anyone who has had psych help in the last 10 years from owning a gun that will be a rough sell.

NewportBarGuy:NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

There is such a system the NICS. States simply don't do what they should do to get mental health disqualifications in there. You're completely right that it could have stopped many murders and suicides.

The government has failed us yet again. It simply amazes me that people continue to turn to the government to help them.

feckingmorons:NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

There is such a system the NICS. States simply don't do what they should do to get mental health disqualifications in there. You're completely right that it could have stopped many murders and suicides.

The government has failed us yet again. It simply amazes me that people continue to turn to the government to help them.

Maybe they need to fund shiat instead of dumping it on locals who are trying to figure out how many fire fighters and police officers they need to fire to make their budget?

In this case, the Weekly Standard is right. The original mother jones study was flawed because it considered only incidents where more than 4 people died, and not every incident where some crazy with a gun begins firing at people in a public space.

NickelP:dr_blasto: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?

Not all by far. Boston, the theatre ones, etc are ended with armed folks. Not to mention I find it hard to believe the shooters all said 'oh hell I'm done killing. Time to off myself'. The fact they were encased by armed folks who'd kill or arrest them had a bit to do with it I'm sure.

Boston wasn't a shooter thing. The aurora guy just stopped and wandered off.

Now, given just how crazy you've got to be in order to get all shooty, it wouldn't surprise me if they did just check out like that. They're farking crazy, you know. What I've never seen, though, is a civilian interdicting in an ongoing shooting and dropping the nutter with thier carry weapon.

I don't think that matters much. It doesn't matter to me at least. Probably worth far more to figure out what the fark has caused the crazy increase in this type of shooting.

Elegy:I don't normally buy into their neocon foreign policy derp, but in this case The Weekly Standard has a good rebuttal of the Mother Jones piece TFA is based on.

In this case, the Weekly Standard is right. The original mother jones study was flawed because it considered only incidents where more than 4 people died, and not every incident where some crazy with a gun begins firing at people in a public space.

Salon has picked up the derp to push the agenda.

The headline does say "mass shooting". Now I'm having trouble keeping this straight. What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again? Seems like it was at least 15 dead at some point this summer.

NickelP:NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

What is the cutoff though? I will plead ignorance to this one being so recent but aren't his issues a decade old? If the plan is to stop anyone who has had psych help in the last 10 years from owning a gun that will be a rough sell.

Not at all, a giant majority of the people with mental health problems would not be disqualified. Only those declared incompetent, involuntarily hospitalized (and not better) or persons similarly situated. If you look at a 4473 form it is question 11f.

If Bob down the street takes an antidepressant prescribed by his psychiatrist he is fine. If he checks himself into the hospital for depression he is still fine. If the county goes before a judge because they think he is a danger, and the judge is convinced he is a danger and that he won't get mental health treatment, then he can't buy a gun.

Oh, and anyone that lives in a medical marijuana or personal use marijuana state that uses marijuana is prohibited from buying a gun. Sorry pothead.

NickelP:NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

What is the cutoff though? I will plead ignorance to this one being so recent but aren't his issues a decade old? If the plan is to stop anyone who has had psych help in the last 10 years from owning a gun that will be a rough sell.

Or it will make gun-owning crazy people who really ought to get help avoid it in order to not lose their guns.

feckingmorons:NickelP: NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

What is the cutoff though? I will plead ignorance to this one being so recent but aren't his issues a decade old? If the plan is to stop anyone who has had psych help in the last 10 years from owning a gun that will be a rough sell.

Not at all, a giant majority of the people with mental health problems would not be disqualified. Only those declared incompetent, involuntarily hospitalized (and not better) or persons similarly situated. If you look at a 4473 form it is question 11f.

If Bob down the street takes an antidepressant prescribed by his psychiatrist he is fine. If he checks himself into the hospital for depression he is still fine. If the county goes before a judge because they think he is a danger, and the judge is convinced he is a danger and that he won't get mental health treatment, then he can't buy a gun.

Oh, and anyone that lives in a medical marijuana or personal use marijuana state that uses marijuana is prohibited from buying a gun. Sorry pothead.

I hope you are joking about the last part I can't read it right now. Which shooters in mass murders over the last 5 years who legally purchased their own guns would have been stopped by that bill?

DoctorCal:Elegy: I don't normally buy into their neocon foreign policy derp, but in this case The Weekly Standard has a good rebuttal of the Mother Jones piece TFA is based on.

In this case, the Weekly Standard is right. The original mother jones study was flawed because it considered only incidents where more than 4 people died, and not every incident where some crazy with a gun begins firing at people in a public space.

Salon has picked up the derp to push the agenda.

The headline does say "mass shooting". Now I'm having trouble keeping this straight. What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again? Seems like it was at least 15 dead at some point this summer.

In the case of the original mother jones study, the criteria they used to define "mass shootings" were:

-four or more people were killed by the shooter (shooter is counted in that fatality count if he died at the end of his rampage)-The killings were carried out by a lone shooter-the shootings occurred in a public place-a handful of spree killings that occurred at multiple locations were also included.

Again, the methodology is outright flawed, because they didn't take into account shooters who were stopped before they got to 4 (or 1 for that matter).

The fire analogy was used upthread, and I thought it was a good one:

I just completed a study that shows that in 684 cases where buildings burned down. In all cases, the fire department didn't affect the outcome, in fact, they weren't even on site at the time, and the buildings burned down to the ground. Therefore, fire departments are useless and we should disband them.

Would you buy that? No, and you shouldn't, because I failed to take into account any other outcome except the worst possible one, i.e. I'm ignoring the cases where the fire department stopped was actually present and stopped the fire in time to save the building.

NewportBarGuy:NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

Unfortunately, every time reasonable actions are suggested to help reporting, gun control activists have to screw it up by demanding that the system cover people well beyond the purpose of it just to harass law abiding gun owners. Just like how the feds had to ban the collection of some gun statistics and prohibit some type of data collection because the gun control crowd was so great in their desire to ban guns that they were abusing the system.

If it weren't for gun control activists, we'd probably have much more sensible laws.

It does not determine, adequately, when someone who is determined to have a mental illness is once again cleared to own a firearm. To me, that's a NO vote.

I like it, but it needs tweaking.

That is sort of the problem,we don't want to offend the mentally ill. Which I completely understand, but I think this bill does provide the necessary 'I'm better' relief:

'(B) In this paragraph, the term 'order or finding' [that a person is disqualified] does not include--

'(i) an order or finding that--

' (I) has expired or has been set aside or expunged; or

' (II) requires treatment, supervision, or monitoring of a person, from which treatment, supervision, or monitoring the person has been fully released or discharged;

'(ii) an order or finding that is no longer applicable because a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body has found that the person who is the subject of the order or finding--

' (I) does not present a danger to himself or to others;

' (II) has been restored to sanity or cured of mental disease or defect;

'(iii) an order or finding with respect to which the person who is subject to the order or finding has been found to be rehabilitated or has been granted relief from disabilities through any procedure available under the law of the jurisdiction in which the order or finding was issued.

Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).

Because People in power are Stupid:I was armed when someone asked me for directions. I was friendly and gave him excellent directions. Little did I know that had I did things a little differently -that guy would have gone on a shooting rampage.

That was me. And your demeanour pissed me off so much that I started adding superfluous "u"s in between my "o"s and "r"s.

Elegy:DoctorCal: Elegy: I don't normally buy into their neocon foreign policy derp, but in this case The Weekly Standard has a good rebuttal of the Mother Jones piece TFA is based on.

In this case, the Weekly Standard is right. The original mother jones study was flawed because it considered only incidents where more than 4 people died, and not every incident where some crazy with a gun begins firing at people in a public space.

Salon has picked up the derp to push the agenda.

The headline does say "mass shooting". Now I'm having trouble keeping this straight. What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again? Seems like it was at least 15 dead at some point this summer.

In the case of the original mother jones study, the criteria they used to define "mass shootings" were:

-four or more people were killed by the shooter (shooter is counted in that fatality count if he died at the end of his rampage)-The killings were carried out by a lone shooter-the shootings occurred in a public place-a handful of spree killings that occurred at multiple locations were also included.

Again, the methodology is outright flawed, because they didn't take into account shooters who were stopped before they got to 4 (or 1 for that matter).

The fire analogy was used upthread, and I thought it was a good one:

I just completed a study that shows that in 684 cases where buildings burned down. In all cases, the fire department didn't affect the outcome, in fact, they weren't even on site at the time, and the buildings burned down to the ground. Therefore, fire departments are useless and we should disband them.

Would you buy that? No, and you shouldn't, because I failed to take into account any other outcome except the worst possible one, i.e. I'm ignoring the cases where the fire department stopped was actually present and stopped the fire in time to save the building.

I'm only asking because there have been at least a couple of threads this summer where people of a certain mindset have tried to minimize incidents where "only" four people died.

NickelP:I hope you are joking about the last part I can't read it right now. Which shooters in mass murders over the last 5 years who legally purchased their own guns would have been stopped by that bill?

The pot part, yeah if you smoke pot you can't buy a gun. I wasn't calling you a pothead, I submitted before I got the s on potheads.

That bill none, but if the states submitted the data needed it could have stopped the VT guy, heck it could have stopped the guy at the Navy Yard if the VA had found he was dangerous and submitted it. (I have no idea if the VA made that determination). I could have stopped Loughner whose college said he was too dangerous to go to school there and sent him to a psychiatrist before he could return (he never went to the psychiatrist and never went back to school) Doesn't the school have a duty to tell the Court of their concerns about him being too dangerous to be in school? Shouldn't he had a court ordered evaluation (heck he might have been treated and not shot anyone).

People lie on the 4473 quite frequently I'm sure, and the NICS probably catches a lot of them (none that lie have been prosecuted amazingly), but we can up that catch rate if we include the appropriate mental health disqualifications.

DoctorCal:NickelP: Props for everyone for having an interesting discussion. This will be done soon when the green hits

Faster than that. The NRA's anti-background check water-carriers have arrived.

I'm in the NRA and I won't sell a gun to anyone who has not had an NCIS check, a concealed carry (or other type of gun licensee that requires a fingerprint based background check), or someone I have personally know for quite some time.

I'm not opposed to background checks when buying a gun from a gun dealer.

That is obviously unprovable. And I don't see many armed civilians on, you know, military bases, school campuses or other gun-free areas. I wonder why that is.. or why they are so often targeted by lunatics.. It's amazing how we've started over on the same exact talking points.

It does not determine, adequately, when someone who is determined to have a mental illness is once again cleared to own a firearm. To me, that's a NO vote.

I like it, but it needs tweaking.

That is sort of the problem,we don't want to offend the mentally ill. Which I completely understand, but I think this bill does provide the necessary 'I'm better' relief:

'(B) In this paragraph, the term 'order or finding' [that a person is disqualified] does not include--

'(i) an order or finding that--

' (I) has expired or has been set aside or expunged; or

' (II) requires treatment, supervision, or monitoring of a person, from which treatment, supervision, or monitoring the person has been fully released or discharged;

'(ii) an order or finding that is no longer applicable because a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body has found that the person who is the subject of the order or finding--

' (I) does not present a danger to himself or to others;

' (II) has been restored to sanity or cured of mental disease or defect;

'(iii) an order or finding with respect to which the person who is subject to the order or finding has been found to be rehabilitated or has been granted relief from disabilities through any procedure available under the law of the jurisdiction in which the order or finding was issued.

Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).

There has to be a way to get off any list that doesn't require thousands of dollars.